The company heralded the launch as the start of a "new era for databases, empowering users to create stunning custom database apps for iPad, iPhone, Windows, Mac and the Web." FileMaker Pro 12 can be purchased for $299, and upgrade pricing is available for $179

In addition, FileMaker Go 12 is also available for iPad and iPhone, for free on the App Store. The software allows users to run iOS database applications created by FileMaker Pro 12.

The latest version of FileMaker includes new themes and Starter Solutions, as well as iPad, iPhone and desktop design tools. It also includes improved file management for today's media-intensive applications.

The high-end version, FileMaker Pro 12 Advanced, is also available for $499 ($299 upgrade). It adds additional development and management tools not found in the basic version. Also available are FileMaker Server 12 for $999 ($599 upgrade) and FileMaker Server 12 Advanced for $2,999 ($1,799 upgrade).

The new 64-bit versions of FileMaker Server 12 and FileMaker 12 Server Advanced also improve performance on wide area networks. They also enhance support for large databases, and add fast file and multimedia content streaming.

"Databases only boost productivity if people genuinely enjoy using them," said Ryan Rosenberg, vice president of marketing and services at FileMaker, Inc. "Everyone wants a great database, but not everyone is a great designer. Let FileMaker 12 handle the design and you’ll create dazzling databases that are incredibly easy to use, on iPad, iPhone, desktop and the web."

The last update, FileMaker Pro 11, launched in March of 2010. It added quicker and easier database creation, improved chart visuals, on-the-fly, reporting, and the Quick Find feature.

The full list of features in FileMaker 12, as provided by the company, are as follows:

Breakthrough design features boost usability on iPad, iPhone and desktop

Users can instantly change the look of solutions with 40 new professionally designed themes. Themes can be used with the Starter Solutions or applied to existing databases for a fresh new look. Special touch themes are tailored for iPad and iPhone with fonts, colors, buttons and other iOS design elements.

Users can rely entirely on the included themes, or can customize every detail with new design tools such as gradients, image slicing, dynamic alignment guides, and configurable grids. Custom screen stencils make it easy to arrange information for iPad and iPhone screens.

Enhanced container fields in FileMaker Pro 12 support drag-and-drop to store, many file types such as PDFs, video, photos, audio, and documents. Files can be stored in the database or linked. Managing linked files just got easier as FileMaker 12 now automatically organizes files on disk and can even encrypt them for extra security.

Access to large files is faster as FileMaker 12 will now automatically generate thumbnails, and, when using FileMaker Server, will stream media files to connected clients. When running on the iPad or iPhone users can now record video and audio directly into container fields, and can stream out content using AirPlay.

FileMaker Server 12 products offer faster, more reliable data serving

The new 64-bit versions of FileMaker Server 12 and FileMaker Server 12 Advanced are built for speed and productivity. Access to more memory can boost performance for larger databases, while enhanced WAN performance assists remotely connected users, especially those using iOS devices. A re-architected web publishing engine improves speed and stability when integrating custom web pages with FileMaker databases, while progressive backups ease server administration and improve solution reliability.

What beta users are saying about FileMaker Pro 12 and FileMaker Go 12 for iPad and iPhone:

"FileMaker Pro 12 is a great update," says Dean T. Bingham, president, db Digital Design. "I have converted all of my previous information to FileMaker Pro 12 and everything works flawlessly. I have used the slick new Starter Solutions to extend the functionality of my databases – and the ease of building forms from scratch, with the compatibility of desktop, iPad and iPhone formats, is a huge boon."

According to IT and facility manager James Pierson, Rampart Hydro Services, "The use of FileMaker Go 12 enables us to get timely and consistent data from the field eliminating the hodgepodge of spreadsheets, hard-copy forms, and the odd flap torn off an old cardboard box. I love the idea of FileMaker Go specific script steps, making it easier to take advantage of the growing capabilities of iOS."

"Thanks to FileMaker Pro 12 and its ease of extension to iOS devices, creating a full-on Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system for small business will take a lot less time and effort than I ever imagined," says George Page, president, Sea Breeze Farm.

Does the new version of Filemaker Go work with earlier versions of FM databases? We're not going to be upgrading for awhile. Are previous versions of FM Go still available and are they free now?

Filemaker 12 is a new file format ( previous versions from Filemaker 7 have been on the same file format) so it requires FM12 Go, FM12 server and FM12 pro on the desktop. FM 12 Go therefore won't work on FM11 server or FMPro files

I've played with Filemaker over the years and have always come away not only disappointed but outraged. It's junk. It's design and implementation shows a thorough lack of knowledge of relational database theory and practice. It has and I guess always will be an expensive commercial product that is no more than a first year computer science class project without the input from professor telling them how to separate the relational database subsystem from the view of the database contents, or instructing them on relational database theory.

MS Access is far superior, and it's still a mediocre product that gets worse with age, adding bloat to bloat, with each release. The last release allows one to push an Access application to a server, but you cannot use most "strengths" of the Access system.

Then, OpenOffice? Another mediocre attempt at creating a PC-based RDBMS.

Filemaker should be scrapped. Hire top experts to design and implement such a system correctly and cleanly leaving no remnants of the old Filemaker (there's nothing there worth keeping). Integrate with iCloud (competing with Amazon and Google offerings), and server-based commercial databases, such as Oracle. Then that would be something to be proud of.

I've played with Filemaker over the years and have always come away not only disappointed but outraged. It's junk. It's design and implementation shows a thorough lack of knowledge of relational database theory and practice. It has and I guess always will be an expensive commercial product that is no more than a first year computer science class project without the input from professor telling them how to separate the relational database subsystem from the view of the database contents, or instructing them on relational database theory.

You have no idea what you're yammering on about; the multi-billion dollar oil company I work for employes FileMaker, it's rich with features that are usefull, easy to use and the server application has been extremely rugged and very useful.

I assume you have no real use for such powerful software; and or have zero idea how to scale FileMaker to its best abilities.

Your shotty review is seen as grain of salt though my personal experienced eyes and hands on knowledge of FileMaker.

I've played with Filemaker over the years and have always come away not only disappointed but outraged. It's junk. It's design and implementation shows a thorough lack of knowledge of relational database theory and practice. It has and I guess always will be an expensive commercial product that is no more than a first year computer science class project without the input from professor telling them how to separate the relational database subsystem from the view of the database contents, or instructing them on relational database theory.

MS Access is far superior, and it's still a mediocre product that gets worse with age, adding bloat to bloat, with each release. The last release allows one to push an Access application to a server, but you cannot use most "strengths" of the Access system.

Then, OpenOffice? Another mediocre attempt at creating a PC-based RDBMS.

Filemaker should be scrapped. Hire top experts to design and implement such a system correctly and cleanly leaving no remnants of the old Filemaker (there's nothing there worth keeping). Integrate with iCloud (competing with Amazon and Google offerings), and server-based commercial databases, such as Oracle. Then that would be something to be proud of.

Amen...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Market_Player

You have no idea what you're yammering on about; the multi-billion dollar oil company I work for employes FileMaker, it's rich with features that are usefull, easy to use and the server application has been extremely rugged and very useful.

I assume you have no real use for such powerful software; and or have zero idea how to scale FileMaker to its best abilities.

Your shotty review is seen as grain of salt though my personal experienced eyes and hands on knowledge of FileMaker.

I've played with Filemaker over the years and have always come away not only disappointed but outraged. It's junk. It's design and implementation shows a thorough lack of knowledge of relational database theory and practice. It has and I guess always will be an expensive commercial product that is no more than a first year computer science class project without the input from professor telling them how to separate the relational database subsystem from the view of the database contents, or instructing them on relational database theory.

MS Access is far superior, and it's still a mediocre product that gets worse with age, adding bloat to bloat, with each release. The last release allows one to push an Access application to a server, but you cannot use most "strengths" of the Access system.

Separating the "programmerspeak" from the workflow, Filemaker has consistently focussed on being able to present well formatted data cleanly in user friendly ways, along with the capability to integrate tightly with external workflows in "real world" deployment situations. (applescript FTW). The performance and storage capacity, and stability is "good enough" for what it is used for. By allowing users and developers to focus on their core business needs instead of having to think like a programmer, it delivers where access hinders. having spent the last month working with FOXPro vision trying to drag that kicking and screaming into the 19th century you can keep access.

In real world situations you do not always have the luxury of a clean scope or problem definition, and having a tool that can adjust flexibly to poorly defined business needs, or constantly evolving scope is a time and cost saver.

The biggest problem with FMP isn't the software itself, it's that it's easy enough so that people who know nothing about proper database structures and conventions can use it. They wind up creating databases that look like "ransom notes".

I've played with Filemaker over the years and have always come away not only disappointed but outraged. It's junk. It's design and implementation shows a thorough lack of knowledge of relational database theory and practice. It has and I guess always will be an expensive commercial product that is no more than a first year computer science class project without the input from professor telling them how to separate the relational database subsystem from the view of the database contents, or instructing them on relational database theory.

Sorry, but you have no idea what you are talking about. FileMaker works differently than pretty much every other DBMS out there, but it is by no means junk as evidenced by the many applications it is used for. The fact that you have never fully learned how it operates is irrelevant. That says a whole lot more about your abilities than FileMaker's.

The biggest problem with FMP isn't the software itself, it's that it's easy enough so that people who know nothing about proper database structures and conventions can use it. They wind up creating databases that look like "ransom notes".

I've seen plenty of Access databases in my day that were designed and implemented poorly as well. This is a criticism of the user, not the product.

I've played with Filemaker over the years and have always come away not only disappointed but outraged. It's junk. It's design and implementation shows a thorough lack of knowledge of relational database theory and practice...

Your statement shows a thorough lack of knowledge of the real world. Filemaker is being used by thousands of companies on a daily basis to manage every aspect of their business. Whether the product fits your academic, pretentious opinion about "database theory" is irrelevant; these are reliable, powerful, and flexible database systems that get the job done.

Frankly I have not used FileMaker. However I have lots of experience with MS Access and thus can confidently say you are nuts. Access is one of the most screwed up and buggy apps MS makes. The tools supplied with Access suck, as such it is an app that is not suitable for either casual nor professional use. It is a lesson learned the hardway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by waldobushman

I've played with Filemaker over the years and have always come away not only disappointed but outraged. It's junk. It's design and implementation shows a thorough lack of knowledge of relational database theory and practice. It has and I guess always will be an expensive commercial product that is no more than a first year computer science class project without the input from professor telling them how to separate the relational database subsystem from the view of the database contents, or instructing them on relational database theory.

I could be wrong but I thought the point of FileMaker was to support the user not database scientists. This makes about as much sense as saying that Apples contact database is not flexible enough. Rather contacts provides an elegant interface to the underlying database.

Quote:

MS Access is far superior, and it's still a mediocre product that gets worse with age, adding bloat to bloat, with each release. The last release allows one to push an Access application to a server, but you cannot use most "strengths" of the Access system.

I'm pretty much convinced that you are off your rocker. Access is pretty much the worst commercial database shipping right now.

Quote:

Then, OpenOffice? Another mediocre attempt at creating a PC-based RDBMS.

Filemaker should be scrapped. Hire top experts to design and implement such a system correctly and cleanly leaving no remnants of the old Filemaker (there's nothing there worth keeping). Integrate with iCloud (competing with Amazon and Google offerings), and server-based commercial databases, such as Oracle. Then that would be something to be proud of.

And thus make it completely useless for the intended audience? There is nothing wrong with software that attempts to simplify complex ideas for the users. Just because FileMaker doesn't expose a database in the way you commonly think of databases does not mean that such a data base is a bad thIng. It might not be your thing but that is a different story.

I've played with Filemaker over the years and have always come away not only disappointed but outraged. It's junk. It's design and implementation shows a thorough lack of knowledge of relational database theory and practice. It has and I guess always will be an expensive commercial product that is no more than a first year computer science class project without the input from professor telling them how to separate the relational database subsystem from the view of the database contents, or instructing them on relational database theory.

MS Access is far superior, and it's still a mediocre product that gets worse with age, adding bloat to bloat, with each release. The last release allows one to push an Access application to a server, but you cannot use most "strengths" of the Access system.

Then, OpenOffice? Another mediocre attempt at creating a PC-based RDBMS.

Filemaker should be scrapped. Hire top experts to design and implement such a system correctly and cleanly leaving no remnants of the old Filemaker (there's nothing there worth keeping). Integrate with iCloud (competing with Amazon and Google offerings), and server-based commercial databases, such as Oracle. Then that would be something to be proud of.

Oh, I really agree with you. Everywhere I've ever worked, IT and Accounting worked in the same general area, all for the purpose of generating the info management needs about the business. MS Access is much better than the old FileMaker I tried. When creating a database one MUST set up the relational structure. The whole POINT of a database is to eliminate duplication inherent in trying to use a spreadsheet to enter information. And to be able to assign fields to your spreadsheet items and import them into a database. I have not seen this new FileMaker product. I hope they have a separate area to set up the fields/table relationships so the end user doesn't have to get lost in any of that. Gosh I think I've used a database for just about every possible type of task. They are an enterprise essential.

I had taught myself FileMaker ages ago, noting that it was also cross platform. I was expecting Mac to take over the world ( thank god I bought the stock!) but I just didn't know how they would ever get into enterprise with FileMaker. I created a couple of custom applications to test it out, and it sucked. I mean, wtf is a 'portal'??? The relational aspect was so weak as to be useless. Thne you had the record navigator on all your Forms that ate up screen real estate using this stupid 'open book' icon.

Anybody here use the new FileMaker, is it still 'cross platform'? Hoping Apple gets this right. Maybe the accountants down in the San Antonio campus can clue in Apple Corporate as to what is needed. Apple may not care about accounting and such, but databases are rather central to the whole company ecosystem, it wouldn't hurt to have a universal language to send their information around in. Besides, even Final Cut Pro is all based upon a database!

What is really factored into the price is a kind of perpetual sense of disbelief that any company could be as good as Apple is. ~Retrogusto

The biggest problem with FMP isn't the software itself, it's that it's easy enough so that people who know nothing about proper database structures and conventions can use it. They wind up creating databases that look like "ransom notes".

You just described the side effect of getting tools into the hands of the people in every thing. : ) At least with databases one doesn't have to see and hear the results just walking down the street every day!

MS Access is far superior, and it's still a mediocre product that gets worse with age, adding bloat to bloat, with each release. The last release allows one to push an Access application to a server, but you cannot use most "strengths" of the Access system.

Then, OpenOffice? Another mediocre attempt at creating a PC-based RDBMS.

Are you kidding me? MS Access is the WORST database on the freaking planet. Anyone who uses it needs a bullet to the head.

OpenOffice? You have no credibility at all. There are in fact more FileMaker databases out there than you realise and NONE of them are first year databases.

I still cannot understand why Filemaker has not leveraged its database technology to create a stable of Mac-friendly business applications.

Filemaker Contacts could take on the CRM market (i.e. a competitor to ACT on the PC.)
Filemaker Projects could be a player in the (admittedly crowded) Mac project planner market.
Filemaker Actions could be a great little ToDo/GTD application.

A more savvy company would have taken advantage of these opportunities years ago.
With their ownership of Filemaker Pro tech, the costs would seem to be fairly small.

Oh, I really agree with you. Everywhere I've ever worked, IT and Accounting worked in the same general area, all for the purpose of generating the info management needs about the business. MS Access is much better than the old FileMaker I tried. When creating a database one MUST set up the relational structure. The whole POINT of a database is to eliminate duplication inherent in trying to use a spreadsheet to enter information. And to be able to assign fields to your spreadsheet items and import them into a database. I have not seen this new FileMaker product. I hope they have a separate area to set up the fields/table relationships so the end user doesn't have to get lost in any of that. Gosh I think I've used a database for just about every possible type of task. They are an enterprise essential.

Based on what you've said, you didn't really learn FileMaker, or its been 20 years since you tried it. FileMaker has been relational since version 3 - which came out almost 20 years ago.

Your criticism has no validity, just like the person you are agreeing with.

I still cannot understand why Filemaker has not leveraged its database technology to create a stable of Mac-friendly business applications.

Filemaker Contacts could take on the CRM market (i.e. a competitor to ACT on the PC.)
Filemaker Projects could be a player in the (admittedly crowded) Mac project planner market.
Filemaker Actions could be a great little ToDo/GTD application.

A more savvy company would have taken advantage of these opportunities years ago.
With their ownership of Filemaker Pro tech, the costs would seem to be fairly small.

Having the database back-end doesn't necessarily make you an expert in the front end. I'd rather FileMaker make an API so developers can use its back end in their own apps. I think you'll see a lot better apps if that happened.

Having the database back-end doesn't necessarily make you an expert in the front end. I'd rather FileMaker make an API so developers can use its back end in their own apps. I think you'll see a lot better apps if that happened.

That might work, as long as the Filemaker side of things remains hidden whilst unlocking its database power in the backend. Right now most Filemaker-based third party solutions are basically fancy templates that seem slow or confusing.

I still think the place to start is an ACT-competitor for the Mac platform.

as planned, this 'upgrade' is a big disappointment. no decent way to link tables, no deeper SQL functions, no horizontal portals, still NO NATIVE REGEX (!!!!), no calendar layout tool, and so on and so forth.

filemaker is probably considering those features for filemaker 15, with a planned release circa 2017... let's all move to php/mysql, this is where is thing is heading anyway.

I've looked at it two years ago, went straight to the relational parts and it had not improved much. Just couldn't do more than rudimentary relationships. Can't do sub-tables, or have fine control over it, pain in the ass kludge linking. Fine for simple things but only that.

What is really factored into the price is a kind of perpetual sense of disbelief that any company could be as good as Apple is. ~Retrogusto

as planned, this 'upgrade' is a big disappointment. no decent way to link tables, no deeper SQL functions, no horizontal portals, still NO NATIVE REGEX (!!!!), no calendar layout tool, and so on and so forth.

filemaker is probably considering those features for filemaker 15, with a planned release circa 2017... let's all move to php/mysql, this is where is thing is heading anyway.

php/mysql might be useful at the back end, but getting anything looking halfway decent still has a pebcak if your database developer doesn't care about the user.

There is a reason it is the most popular personal database in the world, the ease of deployment between desktop and mobile devices, and the capability to serve the needs of larger businesses.

It's not free, but it more than makes up for that with productivity and flexibility. call me when php/mysql does applescript integration or allows for full end to end production of engineering documentation quickly, cheaply, securely and fast.

Maybe the accountants down in the San Antonio campus can clue in Apple Corporate as to what is needed. Apple may not care about accounting and such, but databases are rather central to the whole company ecosystem, it wouldn't hurt to have a universal language to send their information around in.

Don't even get me started about accounting. The fact that Intuit has so thoroughly messed with the Mac platform over the last few years is at least partly due to Filemaker not developing a serious Accounting application for the Mac.

Don't even get me started about accounting. The fact that Intuit has so thoroughly messed with the Mac platform over the last few years is at least partly due to Filemaker not developing a serious Accounting application for the Mac.

But in the decade when Quicken and QuickBooks were the only real options, Filemaker could have, and should have used its tech to aid its parent platform.

MYOB has been around for decades, and was able to be integrated to Filemaker using applescript back then, still no issue.

as far as horizontal portals, other functionailty, web viewers are still able to be used to present php queries of filemaker data using the php api, or sql queries against filemaker databases, to present exactly this kind of data.

Just because you don't realise it can do it, doesn't mean the fault lies with filemaker as a product.

it's power is as a workflow integration tool, moreso than as a "database" its core product does this extremely well, why duplicate efforts created by other vendors when you can just connect to other vendors and not re-invent the wheel.

It seems to me a lot of people don't understand what Filemaker is aimed at. I don't believe when they designed it the idea was to create a transactional database engine that can server millions of web transactions per hour. (btw, neither was Oracle or SQL Server originally).

The point of Filemaker is that you can very quickly design a solution to a data capture or management problem. A nice bonus is that it's cross platform. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't think you can compare ACCESS with Filemaker. ACCESS has always been somewhat schizo about what it wants to be. On one hand it's trying to be a front end to SQL Server (or other ODBC databases) on the other hand it's trying to be a standalone desktop database. It can be used for both but as some already said here it's neither user friendly nor particularly stable.

That might work, as long as the Filemaker side of things remains hidden whilst unlocking its database power in the backend. Right now most Filemaker-based third party solutions are basically fancy templates that seem slow or confusing.

That would be the idea. There is no real API today, so comparing today's solutions is not really the same. I'm talking about a full native cocoa-developed front-end with calls to the database. No FileMaker UI at all.

as planned, this 'upgrade' is a big disappointment. no decent way to link tables, no deeper SQL functions, no horizontal portals, still NO NATIVE REGEX (!!!!), no calendar layout tool, and so on and so forth.

filemaker is probably considering those features for filemaker 15, with a planned release circa 2017... let's all move to php/mysql, this is where is thing is heading anyway.

Most of what you asked is available now via plugins. As for SQL, FileMaker's goal is not to become an SQL database. That's kind of the point of FileMaker - that it's not just another SQL database. If you want an SQL database, use MySQL, Postgres, or Oracle.

I've looked at it two years ago, went straight to the relational parts and it had not improved much. Just couldn't do more than rudimentary relationships. Can't do sub-tables, or have fine control over it, pain in the ass kludge linking. Fine for simple things but only that.

And this is the problem with people who don't take the time understand FileMaker. They think in terms of SQL database because that's all they know. Stop trying to think in terms of SQL, and in terms of real world problems you want to solve. Then tell us what actual tasks FileMaker can't do.

One of the big problems with using Filemaker for contact management is getting leads into the database.

I can come back from some events with 30-40 business cards. CardScan and other bcard scanners will scan these into vCards, but there's still no automatic way to get a bunch of vCards into a Filemaker contact database.

I've played with Filemaker over the years and have always come away not only disappointed but outraged. It's junk. It's design and implementation shows a thorough lack of knowledge of relational database theory and practice. It has and I guess always will be an expensive commercial product that is no more than a first year computer science class project without the input from professor telling them how to separate the relational database subsystem from the view of the database contents, or instructing them on relational database theory.

MS Access is far superior, and it's still a mediocre product that gets worse with age, adding bloat to bloat, with each release. The last release allows one to push an Access application to a server, but you cannot use most "strengths" of the Access system.

Then, OpenOffice? Another mediocre attempt at creating a PC-based RDBMS.

Filemaker should be scrapped. Hire top experts to design and implement such a system correctly and cleanly leaving no remnants of the old Filemaker (there's nothing there worth keeping). Integrate with iCloud (competing with Amazon and Google offerings), and server-based commercial databases, such as Oracle. Then that would be something to be proud of.